commission. on alcohol duty there is a small rebalancing to hy factors to reduced the tax on low strength beers. otherwise basically stuck with alcohol duty for the parliament. the small business rate relief which we extended for another year at considerable cost does help. and don't claim that will make it to be in orlando but nevertheless that is something we have been able to provide. ..

>> in the recent interview he said the treasury is a great institution. i don't disagree with that. it needs to be clear the limitations of his role. i think that is also free important to say. mr. stephenson seems obsessed with the treasury as he has been going on, but this is a recurring theme over many years. >> is making a comeback. >> isn't?

[laughter] >> chancellor, how much have you factored in for the take from the 50p tax rate? what ever that figure is, how did you arrive at it? how many people are you imagining or having over 150,000? >> i think these days the obr makes these estimates. i think they assumed around 150,000 people are paying it. they have identified potentially some stalling in the 50 tax rate. some people brought it in the previous financial year, and that's what they think one of the principal causes of the borrowing being slightly less than forecast. but then what i said in the budget was that we would look at

-- i don't think -- basically we're not going to probably be to answer your question until we have a self-assessment forms in, they we can assess whether the amount of money raised on 50p is what i forecast and they will not coming until january. >> i accept that but that is -- you know, i understand until the self-assessment forms come in, but we are talking about the budget you've put on the table today. you must have a figure in a. the past chancellor had 3 billion -- two and half a billion, 3 billion the following year. those figures that were put in your budget, -- >> they have not changed. they are not my figure they are the obr's figures. the figures i --

[talking over each other] >> the original -- i think the obr, the chancellor, my predecessor took the responsibility for numbers, and the obr's view is that they would go with the previous estimates and there was no evidence to suggest that needed to be changed. and we will await the self-assessment forms to see what the actual number. >> it was 1.3 the year we are in, 2.5 the year we are going to get in on friday. 3.3 the following year. that's billion so that's considerable amount of money. now, are you saying when alastair put them in, with the help of you and your very good staff, you must have calculated, d. recognize that, is that all the people who involve the 150,000 in this country, 150,000? are do we have the figures mixed

up? >> i've got the figures in front of me. but i mean, obviously the previous forecast was the government's forecast. the treasury advised the size, and it would be inappropriate for me to get into the territory whole advice of that subject. >> your the secretary. are you telling the treasury select committee gordon brown or alastair hoopla figures in -- [talking over each other] >> i'm not saying -- i'm not saying -- i'm not saying that all all. i'm not getting a running commentary on the advice. i just can't -- >> you presented a budget, you present a budget.

every town in our budget matters. we're talking about 7 billion income in that, which is considerable. now, i'm simply asking, do you stand prior to the figures? and as the chancellor said, they were inherited from the last government. so i shall ask you. you with the family secretary. so they are okay? then i asked you, look, how many people did you base it on. that's all in asking. no major figures. no controversial figure. you anticipated in this year we're in now, 1.3 billion pounds from the 50p. how many people did you anticipate we're going to pay them? >> i can give you the number. i can remember the extensive discussion with the committee at the time about the assumptions underlying that. and i'm not -- these costings, we now have an independent

office budget report -- >> it will become suitable number of people speak was absolutely, oh, yes. >> okay. chancellor, the speculation from the coalition government from the deputy prime minister and the business secretary that when you do your review in january you will find there's no revenue from that, and that they're doing plan before you which is a mansion tax. is the speculation that the government that there'll be no revenue from this tax when you do your next year? >> i mean, first of all, i need to really answer questions of what is in my budget rather than what's not in my budget. i think as i said in the budget speech which was i thought when

we assess the returns of what the revenue is because there has been, at least ask questions about it, the institute has ask questions about it, how much money this would raise. and anyone way to find out which is what comes in. >> the reason i'm asking you this, you quite rightly said we've all got to share this burden. this burden has got to be shared. now, you must have somewhere in the treasury the number of people you anticipated, or even hmrc will give you the number of people who are over 150,000. which are not share my view -- would you not share my view of horror and unacceptable behavior of those figures demonstrated that a fair number of those people who had used methods of

avoiding paying what they should be paying on that income? >> first of all, i agree with you that they should pay what they're asked to pay in taxes. and we haven't discussed it today but there's about a billion pounds am going for a very well-paid people who use what was called disguise enumerations where they get alone, the loan is for the rest of their life. it gets written off when they die. we are stopping that. when it comes to the calculation about the 50p, we are operating on the obr is operate as i understand it, they're operating off the costings done for the previous government. obviously, i'm not privy to th that. i will start have a discussion afterwards and i don't know if we can provide a note about not costing was arrived at. but it wasn't my cost.

>> it would be simply, chancellor, do not agree it would be rather than seeing the january review for a change of policy, rather than your 50p that you don't want for reasons that you can argue, if it was not commensurate with the number of people who should be paying it, i would have thought that the atmosphere we've got now the british people would expect you to be looking very closely at how they were not paying. and just finishing that, there so may times, this sunday that suggested one of the things in the finance bill the banks were using now as a loophole to have their of to pay tax. i know on the genocide 50%. the statement says they are now writing their bonuses in

language that will allow the people to put them aside for three years and pulled him back without paying this tax when you pulled the 50p down. now, i would hope that you would share again my disapproval of that sort of behavior and that you'd be asking your official to speak to the banks to make sure, that if we find that agreements have been reached used to avoid paying the proper tax, we take a very dim view of. >> we do take a dim view of people not paying their correct share of taxation. and actually, again, one of the very early decisions that i took was to increase capital gains tax precisely because there was a considerable income shifting, and income tax of 15% and capital gain tax of 18% which i inherited there to a lot of people turning it into capital

gain. 28% has helped reduce that very, very considerably and there are measures are specifically in this budget that raise a considerable amount of money, confirmed by the obr, around 700 billion pounds. this practice of disguise enumerations which you describe. it has gone on for many years, which was paying people through loans and they would be avoiding taxes. and certainly i will take any suggestion from the committee, or from you personally, if you come across something we need to shut down we will shut it down. >> chancellor, you plan to introduce a new price law for carbon. it will start between 12 and 16 pounds. because i've seen different figures. you know what the figure is? >> it starts at 16 pounds and increases to 30 pounds by 2020 i believe.

>> okay. do you think it is wise to push her household bills and? >> the forecast is, and i think we're quite open about this, that it has increased -- as green measures do, it will in the medium-term, short to medium-term increase the build up and then cause it to fall. so by the latter part of this decade they are falling because of the improvements they have made to energy generation, and the shifting love achieved and the way it hasn't generated in our country. [inaudible] spent how we're going to get these? the model shows an increase in electricity bills, and then a fall and electricity bills a

short number of years later, basically in the next parliament, and the electricity generation sector adjusts. >> it would help to have a look at this. >> i would be happy to send this to you. i should say this was also included in our modeling of the impact on families and so on. [inaudible] it should result in lower bills in the longer-term that otherwise would be the case. because of the great reinvestment. the energy industry record on investment is not great. and so we are depending on the energy industry which is going to have to pay more because of the carbon tax. depending on them putting more money in when they're being asked to pay more.

>> what i was there on the rationale behind this is it is primarily an environmental policy. and it is designed to try and provide some stability in the price of carbon, the fourth be which it can't fall. which will enable industries which are trying to create low carbon forms of electricity generation, give them some certainty about future investment. i've made this argue myself on a number of occasions, the green movement has also made this argument, which is it if you just have cap-and-trade youth can't have very sharp fluctuation in the price of carbon. and it can either drop to zero or dramatically increase depending on whether quotas are being met. with a carbon price floor as well as the nuclear cap-and-trade system, you are basically providing electricity, more power generating companies with some kind of certainty for

future investment plans. and that enables them to undertake the very, very substantial investment that is required in our electricity generating sector. because it is pretty old and needs replacing. >> that's my point that it requires a investment. usage our modeling on this. >> but this will help. this will help because if you're creating for example, an offshore wind farm, as opposed to a coal-fired power station, you know the carbon price will give you a competitive advantage over the coal-fired plant. >> you said you did some modeling which shows the price will fall eventually -- >> i said by the end of this decade. >> in the shorter term, what would be the price? >> i think, i will send you a note on the. i think from memory the average increase was 16 pounds.

>> per -- >> per household. but although, i think two-thirds of the cost of this is borne by businesses. i wished i was very criticized by the oil industry. this has been out in conversation for a very, very long time. i think the previous government was on very similar lines. this was something that was part of a broader change your electricity market. >> do you worry that it might constitute a substitute for the nuclear industry? >> well, i don't think him again it's not a question of substitute. i think there is an issue about low carbon electricity generation, and again, part of our electricity market review has been to try to encourage low carbon electricity generation. and this includes nuclear power.

but we all voted for reductions in the u.k. carbon emissions over this decade, and, indeed, it will happen when the local leader and we voted for those things, committed ourselves to things and we are now going to make them happen. and i personally believe that nuclear power is part of the answer, not a whole but part of the intricate and, indeed, even if were not trying to shift to low carbon economy, our existing nuclear power generation is much better and needs replacing. >> but nevertheless the nuclear industry has been lobbying for this like mad. notches under previous governments, because they see, i don't think they're being altruistic. i think they fear --

>> what we're doing is we're pricing, pricing, but we are accepting that has an impact on people beyond just those, you know, the generator that needs to bear a cause for the broader social impact of the carbon production. >> okay. thanks. >> chancellor, when you announce your proposal to merge income tax with a national insurance, you circumscribed into my sink you were not going to abolish the principle that you were not going to extend national insurance to unfunded income. doesn't that rule out most of the potential benefits of? >> i want to avoid the trap that michael lawson reminded me of. spent but what potential benefits they that live? >> i think they're very

substantial operation. i think there are two issues running national interest and income tax law. the first is for the taxpayer which is you have to on income which are different rates. and you could come if you are being completely idealistic, you would say the whole thing is a fantasy, let's get rid of it all and a single rate income tax. i don't think that is realistic. i think it would undermine the contributory principle which is important hard pensioner system. and i think you might have -- they would never be realized. and nigel lawson specifically talk to that in the late '80s, as i suspect most cancers have at one point or another. there's a separate problem with national insurance and income tax which i try to address, which is companies, have to run to complete a separate payrolls. now, if we can merge the

operation of that tax so that it's a single payroll but they're still a separate national insurance plan and income tax, then we should be able to save for business very substantial amount of money and save for the taxpayer very substantial amount of money because where to run two different systems. >> why are you looking to maintain -- [inaudible] >> i think it's part of our state pension. of course, also changed our state pension. i think it's quite an important principle of our pension system and there are other contributory benefits. for our state pension i think there is a long-established principle, if you working in the contributions or indeed now if your mother, you can pass it to children. you are making, you're putting, making a contribution to your future pension. and i think it would be, i think

a government should think long and hard before it abolished that. >> not having to run two systems, but you recall nigel lawson's green paper in 1996 would set and i quote, the benefits of a combined charge would be unlikely to justify the ensuing upheaval. argue -- >> i think -- [talking over each other] >> well, what nigel lawson was seeking to do as i understand it, was to merge the two, considering merging two taxes. and he backed away from that for all sorts of reasons. what i'm looking at his merging

the way these taxes are collected, looking at the period of charge to the bases of charge and whether we can have a much, much simpler system for the sake of the business or for the sake of the revenue, a single system. but not get into should pay just a national insurance or they shouldn't. it would level national interest on other forms of income or we should make sure we get rid of the contributory principle are we shouldn't. i just thought, you know, if i did all that even if i want to i suspect we would be back to square one. >> you are planning to harmonize the systems the best you can? >> yes, basically. and that is why i was very careful in my budget speech to say i was merging, not national insurance and income tax, and merging the operation. >> couldn't i just be clear on one further point, which is

where the you've examined carefully distribution impact that higher inflation might have? and if so, whether you have any material prepared for your treasury? >> well, i -- we've had discussions about the impacts of inflation on the economy. we have not published distribution of of impact that i'm aware, high inflation or higher inflation, higher than, expected inflation. >> the reason i raise that is in your correspondence with the governor hughes made it clear that you're running a high policy to make room to keep interest rates less. barge to traditional effects. you very kindly, and i think it's been extremely valuable for why the public, you very kindly published extensive distribution

of information about your budget measures on the fiscal side. but there's also the counter partners on the monetary side, where the decisions are taken having considerable distribution affects. and i wonder whether he might be best to take a look at that? >> i'm very happy to take a look. the only thing i would note is the governor in his speech -- tokamak. >> the governor in his speech, the causes of inflation being largely external, and so i don't -- i think it would be, i do think it would be unfair to some characterize my policy in allowing higher inflation when the government itself asked the question if he had increased rates last year, would've have had a material difference on inflation given the causes of that inflation as he identified them. so i don't think it's quite a trade off that you presented me.

>> fair enough. last question. i would just like to raise to you is, this green book on growth can be characterized as an ever-present publication -- and effort for, but then in other it can be seen as the introduction of a house of michael intervention measures which could constitute and has been described as tinkering, meddling with incentives to businesses. it would be hugely helpful, i'm sure you would want to characterize as what you're doing one or the other, you want to say you want to intervene or would otherwise keep out of the way. so i will not bother to ask the question but it would be hugely helpful if, and some of them are already included, ask officials

to go through the green book and cost the tax expenditures, and add up the public spending action in the green book. so there will be some statements to see what the net overall effect is of the green book measures. >> i will certainly undertake that, but you point out, the supply-side to the british economy to make it more competitive, to make a more balanced. and, of course, time will tell whether that is the case. if i could just say one thing, this committee asked me to consider with the creation of the obr, creating nonexecutive directors of that body, as well as it was one of your recommendations, and today we are going to advertise for two nonexecutive directors. mr. choate will be involved in

the selection process. >> thank you very much for the. since you raised that point there is one further issue, which is one of our recommendations which was strongly felt around this table, was that we should have a review about how the body is working in five years. and that should be conducted by somebody who is wholly independent of obr and reporting to us, and able to think rather than just saying what is this, is it okay? women able to elicit that as a concession from the government during the passage of the bill. and i'm wondering what you might be prepared to take up another look at that? >> again, i don't have anything against reviewing operation after five years. i would want to see mr. choate's views as well. i think our objection was putting things unnecessary as we felt onto the face speak if

you're able to give me an oral commitment now, that would be enough. >> i would have no objection. >> that's a long way for. and you very much indeed for coming today and have the pleasant flight. >> good thursday morning. the u.s. senate is about to begin the day. a number of senators are in new york this morning for the

funeral for geraldine ferraro, former congresswoman and first woman to run for vice president. she passed away last saturday. that's it will be spending the morning in general speeches. senators will resume work on the small business bill continuing programs to provide funds to help small, high-tech and research startup companies. up to 10 votes are expected this afternoon. the house comes in at noon eastern. they will spend a day on federal aviation programs. members will consider more than 30 amendments to the measure this afternoon. you can see the house live on c-span. .ow to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, you have given us the great hope that your kingdom shall come on earth.

use the members of this body to work for that glorious day when your will is done on earth even as it is done in heaven. open their minds of our senators to the counsels of eternal wisdom, breathing into their souls your peace which passes understanding. give them the grace to seek first your kingdom, and help them to grow as you add unto them all things needful. lord, empower them through exemplary living to make this nation a shining city upon a

hill. we pray in your gracious name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 31, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: we're continuing to work very, very hard to avoid the terrible consequences that would come with the government shutdown. as vice president biden announced last night, after an hour and a half meeting we had in his office here just a few feet from where i speak, he announced the democrats and republicans have agreed upon a number on which to base our budget cuts. that number is $73 billion below the president's budget proposal. now we have to figure out how to get to that 73 number. as i have said all along, this isn't just about dollars and deficits, mr. president. it's about principles and priorities. what we cut is much more important than how much we cut. the media is very concerned with which party will win this fight politically. i'm much more concerned with making sure the american people don't lose out in this program that we're doing. we have to make sure that the cuts are those that don't really

damage the basic fiber of our country. let me once again remind the senate, children, students, teachers, nurses and seniors would be significantly hurt by the cuts if the republicans passed h.r. 1. the tea party is here today. they are here demonstrating that h.r. 1 should be followed, mr. president, $100 billion. damaging children, students, teachers, nurses, seniors, and many other people in this country. h.r. 1, mr. president, is not a piece of legislation anyone should be proud of. not a single child, not a single student, not a single teacher, not a single nurse, not a single police officer, not a single senior led us into this recession, not one, and punishing innocent bystanders will not lead us to a recovery. we'll continue talking and continue working to find a middle ground.

again, mr. president, we have agreed on a number. we haven't agreed how to get to that number. i hope an agreement can be reached as to how we get to that number. it will not come on the backs of middle-class families and the jobs they need. it will not come if the other side continues to insist on unreasonable tea party unrealistic cuts. i appreciate speaker boehner and the rest of his republican leadership in the house. what a tremendously difficult job they have. i'm sure it's not easy trying to negotiate with the tea party screaming in their ears. we have a lot more work to do. this country is at a crossroads in a lot of different ways, mr. president. the economy is recovering. not as much, not as rapidly as we would like. we can't have what's going on here with the tea party demonstrating, all these very harsh cuts with unrealistic

riders, punishing innocent folks just for political ideology. so we have a lot more to do. i hope that this latest development is the beginning of the end of this crisis, because remember, we -- this isn't the only crisis that we as a country are dealing with. we have about a score of ships from our navy trying to help the good people of japan. we have got a big situation going on in the middle east. not only in libya but all over the middle east. we have a war going on in afghanistan as we speak. we have men and women whose lives are on the line in afghanistan, who are trying to draw down in iraq. we have just a lot of issues, mr. president, that we need to deal with. we know that there has to be budget cuts, and we're willing to do that, but let's also understand we can't balance our budget with what the tea party is wanting us to do. we have a huge problem in this country with deficits. now, mr. president, we have been

a pretty good example of how we can balance the budget. we did it in the clinton years. we spent far less money than we were taking in. we were reducing the debt. we were not having annual deficits, so we know it can be done, but we have to do it in the right way, as we did. we want to work with our republican colleagues, and we have proven that we can do that with the two short-term c.r.'s that we have had. but i hope that everyone understands that there's only so much that the middle class of this country can take. there is only so much that we can do to damage the basic fiber of our children, our students, our teachers, our nurses and our seniors. mr. president, head start is a program that's been around for decades, and it helps a lot. it helps little boys and girls learn to read and do their math that they wouldn't ordinarily have opportunity to do this. really poor children.

what -- what the h.r. 1 does is cut hundreds of thousands of little boys and girls from those programs. that doesn't -- that doesn't help our country. we know that cuts must be made, but they must be smart cuts, and we want to do the best we can to work together to do bhafer is reasonable -- whatever is reasonable to reduce this debt that we have. but we know it can be done. it has been done in recent history. mr. president, following any leader remark, there will be a period of morning business for senators. during that period of time, they will be able to speak for up to ten minutes each. the first hour is equally divided and controlled with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. we hope to work out an agreement to vote on 1099, the e.p.a. amendments to the small business jobs bill today. we have been trying to do that for several days. a number of members of the senate are attending the funeral for the late geraldine ferraro. that funeral takes place in new york this morning. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. they will be this afternoon at

the earliest. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the majority leader. mr. reid: could i announce the republican leader is on his way in, and if you would withhold that, the republican leader will make a statement. the presiding officer: the chair will do so at the leader's request.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we are not. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, anyone who follows national politics knows that when it comes to a lot of the issues america cares about the most, the democratic leaders in washington are pretty far outside the mainstream. that's why we have got one democratic leader coaching his colleagues to describe any republican idea as extreme, and that's why other democrats are

attempt to go marginalize an entire group of people in this country whose concerns about the growth of the nation's debt, the overreach of the federal government and last year's health care bill are about as mainstream as it gets. i'm referring, of course, to the tea party. a loosely-knit movement of everyday americans from across the country who got so fed up with the direction they saw lawmakers from both parties taking our country a couple of years ago that they decided to stand up and make their voices heard. despite the democrat leadership's talking points, these folks are not radicals. they are our next-door neighbors and our friends. by and large, they are housewives, professionals, students, parents and grairnts. -- grandparents. after last fall's election, a number of them are members of congress. and later on today, we'll hear from many of them outside the capitol. these are everyday men and women who love their country and who don't want to see it collapse as

a result of irresponsible attitudes and policies that somehow persist around here, despite the warning signs which we see all around us about the consequences of fiscal reckless ness. and they are being vilified because in an effort to preserve what's good about our country, they are politely asking lawmakers here in washington to change the way things are done around here. so this morning, i thought we would step -- excuse me. so this morning i thought we could step back and take a look at some of the things they are proposing and then let people decide for themselves who they think is extreme. at a time when the national debt has reached crisis levels, members of the tea party are asking that we stop spending more than we take in. in other words, they are asking that lawmakers in washington do what any household in america already does. they want us to balance our budget, and they do this because they know they're history and

that the road to decline is paved with debt. is that extreme? they want us to be able to explain how any law that we pass is consistent with the constitution. this means that as we write new laws, they want us to be guided by the document that every single senator in this chamber has sworn to uphold. is that extreme? they want us to cut down on the amount of money the government spends. well, this year the federal government in washington is projected to spend about about $1.6 trillion more than it has. that means we'll have to borrow it from somewhere else, driving the national debt even higher than it already is. what's more, the obama administration plans to continue spending like this for years. so that within five years, the debt will exceed $20 trillion. given these facts, you tell me,

is it extreme to propose that we cut spending? what else? well, a lot of people in the tea party think that the health care bill the democrats passed last year should be repealed and replaced with real reforms that actually lower costs. is that extreme? here's a bill that's expected to lead to about 08,000 fewer jobs which will cause federal health care spending to go up, compel millions to change the health care plans they have and like and which is already driving individual and family insurance premiums up dramatically. businesses are being hammered by its regulations and its mandates. a majority of states are working to overturn it. and two federal judges have ruled one of its central provisions vital the u.s. -- violates the u.s. constitution. none of this sounds extreme to me.

tph-fbg, if you ask -- in fact, if you ask me the goals of the tea party sound pretty reasonable. these folks recognize the gravity of the problems we face as a nation and they're doing something about it for the sake of our future. they're engaged in the debate about spending and debt, which is a lot more than we can say about the president and many democrats here in congress. they're making their voices heard and they've succeeded in changing the conversation here in washington from how to grow government to how to shrink it. in my view, the tea party has had an overwhelmingly positive impact on the most important issues of the day. it's helped focus the debate. it's provided a forum for americans who felt left out of the process to have a voice and make a difference. and it's already leading to good results. it may take some time, but thanks to everyday americans like these getting involved, speaking their minds and advocating for commonsense

reforms, i'm increasingly confident we'll get our fiscal house in order. and republicans are determined to do our part to advance the goals that i've mentioned. that's why we've been fighting to cut spending in the near term and that's why we'll soon be proposing a balanced budget amendment. american families have to balance their budgets. so should their elected representatives in washington. it's not too much to expect that lawmakers spend no more than they take in unless you think it's extreme to balance the books. and that brings us to the heart of the matter. the last time the senate voted on a balanced budget amendment in 1997, the federal deficit was a little over $100 billion. today it's about $1.6 trillion. back then the national debt was about $5.5 trillion. today it's closer to $14 trillion. back then the amendment failed by just one vote. just one.

today democrats are already lining up against it. so what's extreme is the thought that government can just continue on this reckless path without consequence. what's extreme is thinking we can just watch the nation's debt get bigger and bigger and pretend it doesn't matter. what's extreme is spending more than $1.5 trillion than we have in a single year. this is the democrats' approach. that is what is extreme. the sad truth is as our fiscal problems have become deeper, democrats in washington and many others in statehouses across the country have become increasingly less concerned about the consequences. look no further than the ongoing spending debate in which democrats have fought tooth and nail over a proposal to cut a few billion dollars at a time when we're borrowing about $4 billion a day and our national debt stands at $14 trillion.

the president has -- the president has set the debate out entirely, and democrats have the nerve to call anyone who expresses concern an extremist. if you're wondering where the tea party came from, look no farther than that. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor this morning to mark the one-year anniversary of a terrible tragedy in my home state of washington and to once again honor the memories of

those who were killed. on april 2, 2010, a fire broke out at the deserra refinery in anna corris washington and claimed the lives of seven workers. daniel j. alld ridge, matt gumbel, daniel j. hoynas, lou janz and catherine powell. these were men and women taken too young, with so much life to live and so many people to live it with. workers who took on tough jobs, worked long hours during difficult economic times to provide for their families. they were people who made tremendous sacrifices and who embodied so much of what is good about the community they lived in. and, mr. president, they have been dearly missed. even now, one year later, there is nothing we can say to make the pain go away for the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters,

coworkers, family members who still bear those deep scars of loss. but, mr. president, the anna cordis community is strong. while they they have seen pain r resiliency is strong. because this community understands the pain of a loss like this can't be overcome or forgotten. and they know these families should never have to bear that pain alone. so, mr. president, we owe it to the community to honor those they have lost, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to make sure that tragedies like that never happen again. state investigators have determined that that tragedy could have been and should have been prevented. the problems that led to what happened were known beforehand,

and they should have been fixed. and that is heartbreaking. every worker in every industry deserves to be confident that while they are working hard and doing their jobs, their employers are doing everything they can to protect them. so i want you to know i'm going to keep working to make sure the oil and gas industry improves their safety practices, because we owe that to our workers and to their families and to communities like anna cortis all across our country. mr. president, one year after that tragedy, my thoughts and prayers and condolences remain with the families who have endured so much pain, and my profound thanks goes out to the anna cortis community that has been with those families every step of the way. so i am proud to introduce the senate resolution with my colleague, senator cantwell, which we'll be doing later today to recognize the anniversary of this tragedy on april 2, 2011.

and i urge my colleagues to join in remembering those workers in anna cortis who were taken from us far too soon. thank you. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: dent?

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. a senator: mr. president, i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to come to the floor to talk about the state of public education in this country, especially when it comes to the condition of poor children in the united states, in part

because i think it is urgent that we fix no child left behind, a law that is not working well for kids and for teachers, for moms and dads all across the united states, and certainly in my home state of colorado. sometimes people that aren't engaged in the work of teaching our kids, which is, i think, the hardest work that anybody can do short of going to war, don't realize just how horrific the outcomes are for children in this great country of ours, especially children living in poverty. sometimes when i'm on this floor where there are 100 desks, 100 senators, i think a little bit about what the condition would be of the people here if they were not senators. but if these 100 people were poor children living in the united states of america in the 21st century. first of all, mr. president, it's important to recognize that

of the 100 senators, of the 100 kids in this great country, 42 of the 100 would be living in poverty. 42 out of 100 would be poor. of those senators, now poor children living in this country, by the age of 4 as this chart shows, they would have heard only one-third of the words by their more affluent peers. there isn't a kindergarten teacher in this country that wouldn't tell you that that makes an enormous difference right out of the chutes. by age four, only 39 of the 100 children can recognize the letters of the alphabet. just 39 of 100 by age four.

in contrast, 85% of the children coming from middle-class families can recognize the letters of the alphabet. again, there's not a kindergarten teacher, there's not a high school teacher that wouldn't tell you that that makes an enormous difference to kids when they come to school in terms of their readiness to learn. but what happens, mr. president, when they go to school, when they're actually in our school? by the fourth grade, only 17 out of 100 children in poverty can read at grade level. 17. that's fewer kids than there are desks in this section of the senate floor. the entire rest of the floor would be kids that cannot read at grade level by the fourth grade.

these kids are reading at grade level. everyone else all across this beautiful chamber would not be able to read at grade level, in america, in the 21st century. only this section can read proficiently in fourth grade. what happens if they stay in school? mr. president, it gets worse. by the eighth grade, only 16 of our kids can read at grade level. you could wander around the entire rest of this chamber looking for somebody who can read proficiently, and i wouldn't be able to find them. i have been in classrooms, as you know, mr. president, all across my state, all across the great city of denver, and all across this country, and in my view, there is nothing more at war with who we are as americans or who we are as coloradans than a fifth grade child reading at

the first grade level. there is a lot of discussion on this floor about your moral right to this and your moral right to that. i can't think of anything less american than a child in the fifth grade doing first grade math. speaking of math, in a world where technology and engineering and invention is going to dominate the 21st century economy. how are we doing in math? 17 of our kids at the eighth grade are proficient mathematicians. when i took the job of superintendent of schools in denver, a district of 75,000 children, one of the greatest cities in the greatest country in the world, on the tenth grade math test that the state administers, mr. president, in that district of 75,000 children, there were 33 african-american students proficient on that test and 61

latino students proficient on the test. fewer than four classrooms' worth of kids proficient on a test that measures, if we're honest with ourselves -- which we're not -- a junior high school standard of mathematical proficiency in europe. that's what we're doing to our kids. by the end of high school, if this senate were a classroom of poor children in this country, only 57 of us would be around to graduate. and only 25 are actually ready for college or ready for a career. that's a quarter of this room. 75, you could just write them off, 75 of these desks. and it gets even worse after that because of our 100 children, only nine will graduate from college.

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. these two rows of desks, these two rows of desks, mr. president, represent children coming from zip codes where they're living in poverty and who ultimately make it through and graduate from college. that's it. two rows in one section of the united states senate. no one in these rows will graduate from college, and no one in any of these desks from here to the other side of this floor will graduate from college. that's been true for a generation, mr. president, and if we don't do things differently, it's going to be true for this generation of kindergarteners, if we don't change what we do. sometimes people think this is someone else's problem. that it's not a question of

national interest. i can't imagine why anybody would think that, but some people do. mckenzie, the consulting group, has done a study that shows that the effect of this dropout rate that we have creates a permanent recession in our economy as great as the one that we have been through. in other words, if we are graduating these kids from college, our economic growth would be far greater than it is right now, and you can see the effect in this -- this recession that we just came out of, people with less than a high school diploma, the unemployment rate is 15.3%. you can see the numbers here, but if you had a bachelor's degree or higher, your unemployment rate was 4%. 15% versus 4% in this recession that we just went through. but the point is also that it creates a chronic recession, a drag on our economy, not to mention the fact that if you go

to the prisons in this country and you ask people did you graduate from high school, the answer is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of the people in our prisons are high school dropouts. it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out how you might start solving that problem by actually graduating kids from high school and getting them ready for college. again, it's not -- this isn't about we're kind of, sort of doing okay. nine kids from poverty, on average, making it through to a college degree. 91 not. it's not as though those odds are somehow fairly distributed across the population in the united states of america. huge international implications, mr. president, of all this as well. you can see these are our students compared to their

international peers on the eighth grade math test. you can see that our anglo kids are scoring up here. korea, singapore, japan, anglo kids in the united states of america. the u.s. average is here. you have to go hungary, england, russian federation, u.s. average. i don't know why we wouldn't want to be first, but we're not first. but look at how our latino kids are doing it, our african-american kids are doing. armenia, australia, sweden, malta, scotland, serbia, italy, our latino kids way down here. but let's keep going. malaysia, norway, cyprus, bulgaria, israel, ukraine, romania. our u.s. african-american students, right above bosnia, two spots above lebanon. think about it through the eyes of one of our african-american students living in a

neighborhood in poverty, in chicago or denver or los angeles or boston. what are the odds that you think you're actually going to be able to graduate, that you're going to be able to contribute to the democracy, contribute meaningfully to our economy, compete in this global economy. they are not long, they are not long and they know they are not long. mr. president, i will close just by saying that we can't fix this problem from washington, we can't, but we can call attention to the question. we can create policies and suggestions about how people ought to do the work differently. having served as a superintendent in an urban school district for almost four years and spent time with our kids, spent time with our teachers, i know we can succeed. the kids have the intellectual capacity to do the work. there's no doubt that they do.

but they are in a system that was designed deep in the last century. in fact, if we're honest about it, a lot of the way the system was designed was in colonial america. and in my judgment, it's time for the burden to shift from the people that want to change the system to the people that want to keep it the same. there were nights sometimes in the school board meetings when people would come and they would say well, michael, how do you sleep at night doing this and doing that and trying to change this and worrying about that, and i would say to them the reason i can sleep at night is that i don't think we could do any worse than we're doing. so we ought to stop and think about what we're doing and think about how to change the way to think about recruiting and training and inspiring teachers in the 21st century. we ought to elevate standards so that we're not kidding ourselves across the country about whether we're competing with our international rivals and we stop

cheating our kids by telling them they are succeeding when they are not compared to kids across the globe. we have to get out of the business of measuring things that don't make sense to anybody right now who is working in our schools. who cares how this year's fourth graders did compared to last year's fourth graders? what we need to know is how did this group of fifth graders do compared to the fourth graders, compared to how they did as third graders. that's just common sense, but that's not the way the law works today. i see my colleagues here from georgia, so i will close, but i want to say this first. we cannot keep no child left behind the way that it is. it is contributing to the problem that's out there. it is making the work harder to do, not easier to do, for our teachers, for our principals and for our kids. our moms and dads are right to point out that it's measuring the wrong thing and thinking about data in the wrong way. and we ought to take this

opportunity in a bipartisan way to fix no child left behind, to left some of that burden from our kids and from our teachers and our principals. and what we have to do as we're doing that is we have got to point to the places where it's actually working, to demonstrate that the fact that you're born into the zip code defined by poverty doesn't mean your life is going to be defined by poverty. we need to point to examples of people that have managed to struggle through or schools that have managed to struggle through and beat the odds and send 95% and 98% of their poor children on to get a college degree, and we need to be asking ourselves why we're not achieving that at scale. i am the proud father of three little girls, and i can tell you that if anyone in this body, anyone in this body faced the same odds for their children or for their grandchildren that

poor children in america face, there is no way that we wouldn't be talking about this issue night and day. in fact, people might give up, i might give up and rush home and say i'm going to take my kids out of that place there and i'm going to put them in a place with the finest teachers, and i am going to give up this senate floor to make sure as a parent that i'm involved in their education. there is no way we would accept these odds for our own children. and what i would argue is the children that i'm talking about are our children. remember, 42 out of 100 are living in poverty in this country. what's our answer for them, mr. president? i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to not make excuses, to not find a reason why we can't lead, to not find a reason why we can't fix no child left behind, but instead to create

some hope for children all across our country living in urban and rural areas that are suffering this horrible plight. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. isakson: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the remaining time for the majority be reserved. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, i would like to be recognized as if in morning business, which i guess we are in morning business. the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. isakson: first of all, i want to commend the senator from colorado and try and ratify really what i heard him say. i came in at the last part of the speech, but i know his focus was on the elementariary and secondary education act and no child left behind. he is exactly right, there are reforms that do need to take place. we have gone three years without a re-authorization, and re-authorization hopefully can happen this year, and when it does, we can improve the plight of our children and we can

reform the way we do some of the things to open up new opportunity for our kids, but accepting the status quo, he is right, is not good enough. we need to make those reforms and we need to make them now, and i personally look forward to the opportunity of working with the senator from colorado in the health and education and labor committee when that issue comes up to reform esea, get it re-authorized and reempower our teachers, our students, our parents and raise the level of education for all americans, and i commend him for his great contribution to colorado and further to the united states senate. i want to steal a line that he just gave us a minute ago. when i walked in, he was saying there were some things congress just can't do, and he is right, education does take place at the local level. there are some things we can fix in washington, but it's primarily done at the local level, but there is one thing congress can fix, and that's our spending, our debt and our deficit. for just a second, i want to speak not in the tone of a politician, not as somebody who is a part of the institution who

is trying to talk about what he thinks. i want to talk about what i think the people of georgia think. the people of georgia really don't understand why we can't do in washington what they have had to do during the last three years. during the economic travails of the last few years, every american family, every american family has had to sit around their kitchen table, reprioritizing how they spend their money, deal with lower returns on their investments, the consequences of unemployment or underemployment. they have had to adapt to difficult economic times. yet, when they turn on the television and they look at c-span, they don't see us adapting to the economic times we find ourselves in as a country. you know, i was in the real estate business for 33 years, and i don't understand a lot of things, but i understand leverage. leverage is a marvelous thing in capitalism. if you have got proper leverage in real estate or proper leverage in business, it can make a lot of things happen. leverage is good, but too much leverage is a death sentence. and we're at a precipice in this

country. we're at a precipice where we're about to fall off, and if we fall off, there is no recovery, because the results of continued deficit spending and continued increasing debts are two things: inflating the dollar in future years to pay that debt off with cheaper dollars which devalues every asset of every american family, and increasing interest rates to unsustainable and unpayable amounts. i lived through that once in the postcarter years of 1988, 1981 and 1983 where we dealt with double-digit inflation, double-digit undeployment and double-digit interest rates. in my state we have double-tk-gt unemployment, 10.4%. interest rates are low but arbitrary and getting ready to go up. the markets that are buying our debt are already looking out in the future and saying interest

rates are going higher three times what they are now, maybe more. if you look at inflation, inflation is arbitrarily low right now, but what's happening to food and prices contributed by gasoline and petroleum? whaoe see happening in the world -- what we see happening in the world marketplaces. it is an inevitable factor unless we get our arms around our debt and deficit. the deficit this year is over $1.5 trillion. unsustainable numbers. we don't have to pay the debt off today. we don't have to reduce the deficit to zero. but we have to get ourselves on a guide path to reducing our deficit and in turn reducing our debt over time. it means we have to sit down at our kitchen table, the floor of the united states senate, the floor of the united states house, prioritize what we're doing and get to the business the american people expect us to get to. we're playing some political games right now with short-term c.r.es when the big votes, the big debates and the big decisions loom ahead.

first the debt ceiling, later the fy 2012 appropriations. there are three things i hope we will do. number one is recognize our system today is broken and is not working. i did a little research. most of my years in congress more dollars have been appropriated through omnibus appropriations than through legitimate debate of budget units on the floor. we didn't do any last year. the reason we're doing a c.r. this year on last year is because it was an omnibus appropriation. we're not spending our money like the american people have to spend theirs. we're not prioritizing, we're not looking at cost-benefit analysis. we've got to change our system. i'm pleased to join with former governor shaheen of new hampshire, a democratic colleague, to introduce the biannual budget and appropriations act for the congress, an act that my mix what 20 of -- mimics what 20 of our states do. that is to operate on a two-year cycle rather than a one-year

cycle. appropriate on odd-numbered years so that on even-numbered years we don't do appropriating. we do oversight. we spend a year not making promises on what political bacon we're going to bring home but a year looking at redundancy and waste in federal spending. if you don't spend a minute looking back, you can never spend a minute looking forward. right now we don't spend any time looking back. we don't reprioritize things that were introduced and established years ago. biannual requires congress to act on the independent budget units in a two-year fashion in the odd-numbered year and requires the oversight and even-numbered years of every function of the federal government. we don't do oversight anymore, and we're paying a terrible price for it. that's the first thing that we need to do. the second thing we need to do is understand that we need to appropriate our money the way

the american people appropriate their money. they measure the benefit compared to the cost. and if the benefit to their family is not equal or greater than the cost, they don't spend the money. but in the united states congress today, we don't measure cost-benefit analysis. we measure how much more we can spend in continuation than what we appropriate in a previous year. that's a broken system and it's a broken cycle. i commend senator corker and his introduction of the cap act, which is the second part of what we need to do, and that's put ourselves in some type of fiscal constraint through a balanced budget amendment and through a spending cap. you know, a little-known secret is the nation of israel, which two years ago confronted problems like the ones we have today. burgeoning debt, a bigger deficit, and spending problems. prime minister netanyahu and their finance minister sat down at their kitchen table in israel, in tel aviv and they established a by annual budget process of two-year proplgss rather than -- appropriations

rather than one, of even-numbered election cycle. then they did a second thing. they put a cap on their debt and they put a cap on spending. you know what happened in two years' time? israel's g.d.p. has grown by 7.9%. the international monetary fund and the world bank have told the e.u. and some of the struggling countries in the e.u. like portugal and like spain that they should adopt a biannual spending process and oversight process. i would say this, if 20 of our states are doing it and they are 20 of our most fiscally sound states beginning with new hampshire, nebraska and oregon, and if israel has done it and demonstrated until difficult world economic times they can grow their g.d.p. by 7.9% and reduce their debt and cap their spending, and if the world bank and international monetary fund are telling the european union, which is in most difficult straits today that it is the answer, part of the answer to how they spend their money and getting an arm around their

spending, i think we should take a look at it and it should be on the floor of the united states senate being debated. we have a window of opportunity. we have a chance to reform our spending process and set ourselves on a glide path to reducing our debt and deficit over time and send a signal to the world market that the america they invested in is going to be stronger in the future. if we continue to dillydally around trying to make political headway out of economic events and push ourselves out on debt and deficit, we're going to have higher inflation, higher interest rates. we're going to devalue of the assets of the american people. and worst of all, we're going to lose our place in the world. i don't want to be a part of that. the president doesn't want to be a part of that. i don't think any member of the senate wants to be a part of that. so my encouragement to the leadership, democrat and republican alike, let's let the best ideas flow. let's let them come to the floor of the senate and let's debate them. let's invite the president to come and sit down with us and do the same thing.

instead of taking entitlements off of the table they ought to be part of the discussion. instead of saying there are some things i'm going to do and some things i will, we ought to say we'll look at everything and prioritize based on cost and benefit. if we do that, we'll do what the people of georgia expect me to do and what i think the people of the united states expect all of us to do. mr. president, we have a great country made great by great people who made difficult decisions in difficult times. this is the difficult decision facing our time. i want to be one of the people that's a part of the solution, not a footnote in history to the beginning of the decline of the united states of america. and i yield back the balance of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, i just had a couple of things to say this morning. first and briefly, i want to, and probably will support the military action in libya. i've been inclined to think that careful use of our forces could make a positive difference to the degree it would be worth the risk of that involvement. but i'm not really sure of that. as a senior member of the armed services committee, these are matters i'm not totally unfamiliar with.

i was very confident from the beginning that we could execute a no-fly zone very effectively, that it wouldn't be is -- there's risk but not great risk because of our military capabilities. however, i do believe that over a number of years the congress and the american people have expressed grave concern over the executive branch committing the united states to military action without full participation of the executive branch. we have not used a declaration of war mechanism, truthfully, as the defining act for most of our military actions in recent years. we've used authorization of military force, resolutions that

authorize the president to utilize military force. we spent weeks doing that before the iraq invasion. not weeks, months. in fact, as i recall, the authorization for utilization of military force in iraq was passed in the fall, i believe october, and the actual invasion didn't occur until the next spring in march. during that time we had many, many hearings. we had full debate. there were resolution after resolution in the u.n. the congress was fully on top of all of it. they knew what was at stake. and we voted. some voted "no" and complained and continued to complain. but for the most part, those who voted "no" supported action because we had been involved in a discussion that was real about

the risk and so forth. then you had other actions such as grenada and panama that had less debate by congress and people have not been happy about that. they felt like there should have been more. i would just say, in my opinion, the consultative process for this military engagement was unacceptable. it did not have to occur in this fashion. there's ample opportunity to discuss it. senator susan collins on the armed services committee a few days ago, we had top defense department officials there -- admiral stavra t*e s, who is the commander of nato forces, was testifying and she said well, we had time, it appears, to consult

and get a vote in the u.n. we had time to consult and get a vote in nato. the arab league apparently found time to reach some sort of consensus. but we didn't have time to involve the united states congress. well, that struck me as a very, very legitimate and serious statement, and i think senator collins was correct. there was ample opportunity to consult congress. this was a war, to use a phrase in recent years, of choice. it was not a military action that was demanded because we had been attacked on our soil or in our legitimate bases somewhere around the world, and we had to defend ourselves immediately. so i'm not happy about it. i think it's a big -- i think

democrats and republicans have the same unease about it, and i believe it's time for congress to assert itself more effectively. we had a briefing last night at 5:00, 6:00. it went 50 minutes. frankly, i didn't get a lot out of it. i heard little that i hadn't picked up from the cable news networks. we turn on the television this morning, and we see news about c.i.a. involvement there, for good or ill. i didn't hear that discussed at our pwraoefplgt it would have been -- from our pwraoefplgt it would have been nice to have

heard it straight from the administration's leaders rather than seeing it on television the next morning. this is the kind of situation we're in. it's not acceptable. congress must assert itself. this administration surprisingly really, based on what they have said during the campaign, what president obama said back during the campaign about our reluctance to initiate military force, it's sort of surprising that we have not had more consultation. maybe it's an institutional rule. once you become president, you don't want to fool with congress. they ask troublesome questions. they slow things down maybe. although in this instance, i think we had a lot quicker response from congress than we got from the administration. but regardless, i think we've got to confront that issue. it's time for congress to, in a

bipartisan way, ask itself first what do we expect. what is a minimum amount of congressional involvement? and then we need to make sure that every president henceforth complies with at least that. and i'm also not happy the way some resolution was passed here that seemed to have authorized force in some way that nobody that i know of in the senate was aware that it was in the resolution that we passed. so i'm not very concerned about that. on another subject, mr. president, we'll have this afternoon a vote in the budget committee, of which i am the

ranking republican, on the nomination, heather higginbottom to be president obama's deputy budget director at the office of management and budget. o.m.b. is a very, very critical part of any administration of any american government. o.m.b. is the agency that controls on behalf of the president the lust of all the agencies and departments to get more money for their budget, and they -- they send up their request, and o.m.b. is the control point for the president. he can't sit down and negotiate every single dispute over funding, and the o.m.b. sort of handles that, controls it if there is a real lawger head debate between cabinet officials

and o.m.b., they can go directly to the president and the president will decide it, but many times, most times, overwhelmingly, the decisions are made in o.m.b., and it's that institution that is critical to contain the growing spending that we have in america. it's a very, very important position. the director, i supported his appointment, jack lew. he had been o.m.b. director under president clinton. he was said to be the one to get credit for balancing the budget, but i do remember that house republicans under newt gingrich fought over spending for months and years. actually, for a short period of time, the government shut down. it looks like it didn't destroy america. we're still operating. but they fought and they fought and they balanced the budget.

so mr. lew was there during that period of time. certainly, he deserves some credit for that, and i was pleased to support him, but i was stunningly disappointed when mr. lew went on television and said the president's ten-year budget calls on america to live within its means to not spend more than we take in when, over the ten-year budget, there is not a single year by the president's own budget submitted by mr. lew in which the deficit fell below $600 billion. and in the out years, the numbers were going up to about about $800 billion. now since mr. lew submitted the president's budget, the congressional budget office, a bipartisan, nonpartisan group, basically the leadership elected

by the democratic majority analyzed mr. lew in president -d president obama's budget said it's far lower than that. the lowest single deficit we'll have in ten years is is $740 billion. the highest president bush ever had was $450 billion. this is unbelievable. this year, the budget deficit is going to be over over $1,500,000,000,000. in the tenth year, c.b.o. said that mr. lew and president obama's budget would call for a a $1.2 trillion deficit. a clearly unsustainable path of surging debt in the out years going up, and that's why mr. bernanke, federal reserve chairman and erskine bowles, president obama's chairman of the deficit commission and all have said this is an unsustainable path.

well, interest last year on the budget was $200 billion. we paid out $200 billion to people of china, governments of china, japan, all over the world and american citizens who have loaned us money to pay the -- so we can spend $3.8 trillion this year while we're only taking in in $2.2 trillion. we have to borrow that money. we don't have that money. 40 cents of every dollar that is spent is borrowed. well, we get a budget for next year blithely calling for education funding to be increased 10%, 11%. calling for the energy department to get a 9.5% increase, calling for the state department to get a 10.5% increase, calling for huge increases in the transportation

department. while inflation is what? 2% or less. and deficits are surging out of control. and what do they say? these are investments. sometimes you don't have money to invest. how can i buy stock if i don't have any money? you just don't have money. reality has to break through. the fact that the president continues to assert that his budget calls on us to live within our means when it's set for the most irresponsible surge of debt the nation has ever seen is breathtaking to me, and i'm disappointed that mr. lew has mouthed the same phrases. he said the same thing.

but mr. erskine bowles who cochaired the commission that president obama appointed, he and alan simpson a few days ago issued a statement when they testified before the budget committee, and they said this country is facing the most predictable economic crisis in its history. when asked by senator conrad, our democratic chairman, about that, he said it could be two years, mr. bowles said, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. we'll have a crisis. alan simpson, the cochairman of the commission, popped in and said i think one year. i think by the end of this year we could have a debt crisis. it's time to act and get on the right path and not be in denial

as we are at this time. and so i asked ms. higginbottom about some of these issues when she came before the committee just to try to determine whether or not she understood the gravity of the situation in which we're now in. i was not satisfied. first, ms. higginbottom's experience level is stunningly lacking. she was a former campaign advisor to president obama, has had no former budget training or experience, not even a college class in economics. she said i'm not an accountant. no, she is not an accountant. she never served on the budget committee, never studied business, never run a business,

never been a mayor of a town, never been a county commissioner who had to balance the budget or a governor or served in a governor's budget office or finance office of any kind, shape or form. has campaigned for, i think, senator kerry. she was -- the highest job i guess she has had was the legislative director, not the chief of staff who manages the staff but the legislative director for senator kerry who testified for her. and she is a fine person. i think that she seems in every way to be a decent and all person and would be a good legislative director here in the senate, but to be the person that looks a cabinet official in the eye and say secretary smith, you're asking for x billion

dollars and we don't have it, o.m.b. says you don't get it. who can talk to the american people and tell them that we are in a fiscal crisis that could lead to a debt crisis to put us in another recession. a double dip. i don't think she has any comprehension of that. how could she? this is not her experience. so she has been a political operative, a legislative operative, and when pressed about it basically said that, well, you know the president's budget is a policy document. well, at this point in history, we -- o.m.b. needs to be thinking about dollars and cents, needs to be thinking about debt. and this idea that we can just

spend and invest, regardless of the financial consequences that will inevitably accrue is false. they need to be listening to someone like erskine bowles. we need someone like erskine bowles in charge of the o.m.b. when the president announced his budget that very day, he said it came nowhere close to doing what's necessary to get this country on the right track, nowhere close. we need somebody of seriousness who understands the threat this country is facing and not some young person. they say well, you -- you have objected to her because she is young. i -- i have never mentioned the word young. but she is young, but the most important thing is she does not have the kind of experience in business or accounting or budget or responsibility or management that you would look for in the

second in command of the congressional budget office, the most central unit in our entire governmental structure committed to containing wasteful spending. we need somebody who will go after waste, fraud and abuse. being a federal prosecutor, former federal prosecutor, i see my colleague in the chair, former attorney general, a little experience in going after criminals who have tried to steal from us wouldn't hurt, it would be some value, but this doesn't have that. so despite the fact that she is a person of character and a good personality and is liked, it is not the nomination and in my view should not go forward, and i will object to it.

i know in homeland security and government affairs committee where she also came up, senator scott brown asked her a number of questions. he said you will be number two, and if director lew is not there, you will be number one, potentially, and in that respect, i would presume you would be dealing with accounting and budgeting. obviously, problems within o.m.b. is that a fair statement? sure, uh-huh. so i guess my original question is what type of budgeting and accounting experience do you have? higginbottom, i have done a lot of policy making. senator scott brown, all right. i understand that, but i guess i'm asking do you have any accounting or budgetary experience, aside from dealing in policy matters?

higginbottom, i'm not an accountant, but the president's budget is an articulation of his policy agenda. i think that's a -- that fails to evidence an understanding of the difficult role of that o.m.b. -- that the o.m.b. has. my staff director for the minority in the senate budget committee served in o.m.b. for a while. such a wonderful person, and one reason he came to my attention was because a member of president bush's administration that i know well said he had to go to him and try to ask him to approve additional funding for the department and he said he could say no, and he would do it in a way that he showed he understood what we were talking about, but he wouldn't give in,

and he made you respect him for it. well, that's just kind of the nature of the o.m.b. all these agency -- agencies and departments, they want to ask for more money for their departments, they want to do all the good things, and somebody has to say this is putting us over the limit, this is putting us over the budget. we don't have this kind of money. i hope that we can get the kind of serious leadership in that office that does not seem to be present today by virtue of the language that indicates that our o.m.b. believes we've got a good budget that lives within our means. both director lew and president obama have repeatedly said that the president's budget allows us to live within our means --

quote -- "spend money that we have each year and begin paying down our debt." numerous, i think five or six fact check organizations who analyze statements to see if they're accurate or not have found these statements to be false. they're plainly utterly false. the lowest deficit we're going to have, according to the c.b.o., is $740 billion in the next ten years. the lowest annual deficit. and our interest payment will increase from $200 billion to over $900 billion in one year, the tenth year of president obama's budget. so i guess i will just say, mr. president, i don't know what time is left on this side -- no time left? i'll wrap up and just say that it's for those concerns that i've expressed that i will not

support higginbottom as o.m.b. department of -- o.m.b. deputy director even though she has many fine qualities as set forth in testimony in her behalf although he did not contend she has experience in budgeting, accounting and finance. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, sometime today we're going to get back to the sbir bill, the bill that deals with helping our small businesses with innovation and growth, so we can create more jobs and continue to lead the world in innovation, so that we can win that international competition the president talks about. we need to do that outbuilding our competitors. part of that is helping our

small business community with innovation. the bill on the floor, the sbir authorization program helps small innovative companies in order to create jobs and help america grow. i take this time, though, to urge my colleagues to reject all of the amendments that may be offered that would take away from the environmental protection agency, their ability to enforce our clean air act. i say that because i truly believe, and i think most people believe -- and it's been proven over history -- that we can have a clean environment and we can grow our economy. in fact, i think if we don't have a clean environment, it's going to be more difficult for us to grow our economy. we need to do what's right for the people of this nation as it relates to their public health. the clean air act has been one of the most important bills to protect the public health of the people of this nation. carbon emissions are pollution. they are polluting our

environment. they are causing respiratory ailments. they are making it more difficult for people who have respiratory ailments to be able to breathe. we have children with asthma that are directly affected by the quality of the air that they breathe. it's our responsibility to take care of our children. it's our responsibility to make sure that they have clean air. the clean air act has helped us deal with those needs. we want the enforcement of the clean air act to be based upon science, not the political wins here in washington. we want the scientists to tell us what we can do to protect our public health. and that's what the clean air act and its enforcement is about. and it's being done in a way that allows our economy to grow. there are some here who say, well, this is just a temporary -- or some of these amendments are just a temporary holdback from what e.p.a. can do

to enforce our laws by putting a moratorium on enforcement. well, we all know what happens with moratoriums. we don't know whether we'll ever get beyond those short-term delays. we don't want to go down that path. mr. president, what do you do if you're a business and you're trying to do what's right with the investments of your company to comply with the clean air act, and now you're being told, well, maybe those rules will change. how do you make the necessary investments in your company without knowing that the ground rules are the ground rules? let's not go down that path. that would be the wrong way to go. let me just give an example of my own state of maryland where we have seen that a clean environment is good for our economy. in 2007 the maryland ledges slay haour passed -- legislature passed the healthy air act. since the creation of that bill, it created thousands of jobs. it created more opportunity for the people of maryland.

constellation energies invested $1 billion in compliance with the 2007 healthy air act, reducing its so-2 sox emissions by 20%. it created jobs and provided healthier air for the people in maryland. let me tell you something, air knows no boundary. we've helped our surrounding states. the problem is the people in maryland are downwind from other states that we wish were making the same type of commitments that we're making in maryland. thr*ets at least maintain -- let's at least maintain the standards of the clean air act. this is the wrong bill to consider this issue anyway. remember i started by saying that we'll be taking up the small business bill to help our small business communities with innovation, sbir, innovation and research. that's the bill we're on. yet our colleagues want to

attach to this bill amendments that would restrict the environmental protection agency from doing its responsibility on behalf of the public to protect our clean air. let me just give you by way of example, we tried this. you know, the e.p.a. is the cop on the beat to make sure the polluters don't pollute our air. we used to have, we at one time had the cop on the beat for the financial markets, and we sort of aoefd that up because -- eased that up because we said we needed to do that for businesses. what happened is we had a financial meltdown. we don't want to go down the same path on protecting the public health of the people of this nation by removing the cop on the beat. that would be the wrong thing to do. i urge my colleagues to reject those types of amendments. let me tell you something, the public gets this. seven out of ten americans want us to enforce our clean air act against the polluters. seven out of ten americans do

not want us to weaken the laws of this country that protect the public health of the people of america. we can't afford to turn the clock back on our clean air policies, and we cannot turn our clock back on the health of our citizens. i urge my colleagues to reject each and every one of these amendments that may be offered that would restrict the enforcement of the clean air act against the polluters of america. let's speak out for our children. let's speak out for clean air. let's speak out for our future. and let's speak out for our economic growth which very much depends upon a clean environment. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: ordered.

mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i am honored to chair a subcommittee of the homeland security and government affairs committee that focuses on contracting oversight. i can stand here with certainty

and tell my colleagues in america and missourians that contracting problems in the federal government are substantial and they're expensive and they have to be fixed. and while we are all focused right now on trying to make the federal government spend less money and be more efficient, there are times that contracting problems have significant consequences beyond that of money being misspent or wasted. sometimes contracting problems have human consequences, and examples would be some of our soldiers that were electrocuted because of substandard contracting work as it relates to showers in iraq when they were standing up for us in a military conflict.

last summer, a problem surfaced relating to arlington national cemetery, and this was a contracting problem, and so last summer, my subcommittee held a hearing on the contracting incompetence at arlington and what the consequences of that incompetence were. and heart breaking as it is, we learned that because of mismanagement of contracts at arlington, graves had been misidentified, remains had been buried someplace other than where families had been told they had been buried, and obviously this is a breathtaking revelation when you think about what arlington national cemetery means to the veterans of this country and to our nation. it is sacred ground. it is the kind of place that

america needs to know is being run well and that the remains of our heroes are being handled with the utmost deference, respect, dignity, and certainly americans have the right to know that we are burying our heroes exactly where their families are told they are being buried. in the committee hearing last summer, i estimated at that point in time, based on what we knew at that time, that as many as 6,600 graves had been misidentified. the army responded quickly and forcefully, and i do want to recognize that katherine condon, the executive director of the army national cemeteries program and pat howland, the

superintendent of the arlington national cemetery, have been responsive and i think have been working hard to clean up this mess. however, we now have recent reports that indicate that maybe i underestimated the significance of this problem and maybe this problem is much larger than i even anticipated. at the time when i used those numbers, people seemed to think that i was exaggerateing. well, we introduced a bill to make sure that there is accountability as it relates to arlington, and along with a number of cosponsors, including senator brown who is the ranking member of the committee at the time, along with senator collins and senator burr and senator lieberman, we introduced a bill that would aim at accountability at arlington, require some reporting to us in nine months, require that the secretary of army continue to be held

accountable on this huge, huge problem at arlington national cemetery. but i think now it's time that we get some interim information because information has now surfaced that -- that potentially many, many, many more graves have been mishandled. we now there is a criminal investigation because we had eight urns discovered in one grave site last fall as we were working on this legislation. while i'm glad the legislation has become law, that doesn't change the urgency of this situation. so i have today written to the secretary of the army, secretary mccue, and i have asked for immediate information on an interim basis about what in fact has happened to clean up this mess at arlington. where are they in the process,

and what is the truth about graves that have been identified, have not been identified and potentially never will be identified. i have asked the following information of secretary hugh. first, i want to know the number of grave sites that have been physically examined to identify the remains that are there. i want to know how many grave sites have been determined to be incorrectly identified, labeled or occupied and the methodology that's been used to make that determination. i want to know immediately how many families have been contacted regarding problems with the grave sites and the number of families that have requested that those grave sites be physically examined. i want to know what the procedure is for contacting the families regarding actual or potential problems with the grave sites and how these procedures have been implemented since our hearing last july. i want to know from the army how will they be able to correctly identify all grave sites by the

end of the year and the estimated costs and time required to complete an examination of that nature. i've asked the secretary of the army to respond to this letter in a week because i'm asking for what progress they've made. this is not something that we can sweep under the rug and say, you know, we've done the best we can. this is not that kind of problem. i have veterans all over missouri that walk up to me when i'm in the grocery store, that walk up to me when i'm at the mall, that walk up to me wherever i am and say, don't give up on fixing arlington. it's too important to all of us. and i do not want this cloud hanging over arlington national cemetery. i have been honored to attend funerals at arlington national cemetery. and i want to compliment the army for the job they do in terms of the honor guard and the dick knit that -- and the dignity that those services

embrace. but management has got a challenge here. and i want to make sure that this does not go off the radar screen in terms of a problem that has to be fixed. it has to be fixed because of the values that we have raised in this country. so i will look forward to the response from the secretary of the army. i will look forward to continuing to work with catherine condon. this is something that i think we've got to continually be transparent about in terms of reporting to the public the progress we're making so that every family member and every member when they go to arlington cemetery they don't ever have to wonder if they are showing respect to the hero at the grave site that is identified on the marker. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i -- the presiding officer: the senator is notified we're in a quorum call. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i rise today, and i'm staying close to the floor today because i'm very concerned that the senate is going to vote on some very, i think, detrimental proposals for the american people that have to do with, for the first time that i can tell in history, telling the environmental protection agency that they no longer -- no longer -- can enforce the clean air act as it relates to carbon pollution. we know carbon pollution is dangerous. we know it's insidious. we know that if in fact the

e.p.a. is stopped from enforcing the clean air act, our families will suffer. they will get asthma. they will have more heart attacks and strokes. they will miss work days. and they will die prematurely. that is the primary reason i rise this morning. but i also want to take some time before i get into the details of that issue to talk about a real crisis looming in front of us, which is the possibility of a federal government shutdown. i have lived through a federal government shutdown, and i could tell you whether you're someone who is trying to get on social security or medicare, whether you're living near a toxic waste dump that suddenly doesn't get cleaned up, whether you're

concerned about enforcement at the border, i could go on and on, there will be a lot of suffering. and if you're a federal employee who works for a living, you will not get paid. so, mr. president, for me, the issue is if federal employees do not get paid, the issue for me is if federal employees do not get paid, then why on earth should members of congress get paid? we're federal employees. we work for the government at the pleasure of the people. well, sometimes they're not so happy about it. they don't get much pleasure. but the fact of the matter is we are elected and we work as u.s. senators, and our paycheck comes from the federal treasury. why should we get paid if we fail to reach an agreement to do the basic work of keeping this

government open? now, years ago when we faced this, it was with speaker gingrich who brought it on. and i hate to say this, but i'm very concerned that we're going to see a repeat from a republican house again. and let me tell you the reason. we had an election, mr. president, and, boy, i know that, i noticed that one because i was in it. and my republican friends in the house are fond of saying "we won." they did take back the house. they did. they won the house. guess what? they did not take back the united states senate. the democrats have a majority, a clear majority, here. the president is still the president, and he's a democrat. and people will have their say,

and we'll get to that in 2012. but here's the point: there's three parts of the government that are involved in the budget showdown, in the budget dialogue. those three parts are: the house. we know where they are. they came up with $60 billion worth of cuts. and then you have a bill that they wrote, h.r. 1, that not only had $60 billion worth of cuts, but all these extraneous legislative riders that proclaimed that the e.p.a. had to stop cleanup of the chesapeake bay, that the e.p.a. could no longer enforce the clean air act as it relates to certain types of pollution. they had other riders. no more money to planned parenthood, no matter the fact that they serve five million people and do cancer screenings and all the things necessary to help women's health and stop

s.t.d.'s and the rest. oh, no, they're zeroed out. a vendetta against them. a vendetta against national public radio. that's what's in h.r. 1. so h.r. 1 was voted on here, and it did not pass. and now we are sitting down with our colleagues to try and work on the budget. not these extraneous riders. if you want to repeal the clean air act, have the guts to come here, put it on the floor, send it through the committees, let's see where you get. you won't get very far. and that's why they're trying to do it through the back door. but let's have a budget bill. now, i believe that the democrats, although we control two-thirds, two-thirds of the government; okay? a third is the house, a third is the senate, a third is the white house. we control two-thirds. are willing to meet them about halfway. well, that's fair. that is more than fair.

but we have rallies by the extreme right wing. they have every right to do it. i welcome them with open arms. but they do not speak for the majority of the people. so i want to get back now to why i think it is important that these members of congress who are talking very openly about a shutdown, that they have some skin in the game. let them have to suffer no paychecks. why should others suffer no paychecks, whether you're someone who works at the parks or someone who works at social security or medicare or someone who cleans up toxic waste sites or works on the border. there isn't going to be any penalty for them.

so, i can only say that it has been 30 days. here it is, mr. president. 30 days since the senate passed a bill that said no budget, no pay. no raising the debt ceiling, no pay. that's what it said. and we sent it over there to the house, and what has mr. boehner done with that bill? nothing. now he has plenty of time to talk about doing away with planned parenthood. he's got plenty of time to talk about, you know, all these things they want to do to harm women's health. they want to repeal the entire health care bill. the entire health care bill. i guess they want to now refund the money -- they want to get back the money that the seniors got to help them pay for prescription drugs. i guess they don't think it's good to be able to keep your kid on your policy until they're 26.

i guess they think it's fine for the insurance companies to kick you out when you get sick. listen, he's got time for that. when it comes to saying we will not get paid if there's a shutdown, he has not taken up this bill. 30 days. and, mr. president, i intend to be object this floor every day -- to be on this floor every day, 31, 32, 33, whatever the days. that was plenty of time. and, by the way, there is a bill by congressman moran. what they said, eric cantor said, oh, we shouldn't get paid. listen, mr. president, i don't know if you know this, what they did. they wrote a bill that said we won't get paid, but in that bill it says h.r. 1 will be deemed having passed if the senate doesn't pass it by april 6. so they have taken the most extreme bill in american history with cuts that experts say --

mark zandi, a republican economist -- will lose 700,000 jobs. a bill that is so extreme that it tells the e.p.a. they can't enforce the law. and then they attach to it the no budget, no pay. not good enough. h.r. 1 is not passing. they can say they deem it passed. that's like my saying i deem every bill that i write passed. i've written a lot of bills. the violence against children act. i could tell you the bills i've passed to give tax breaks to people who work at home. i have bill upon bill. i would love to say if we don't act on it, i deem it passed. what are they talking about over there? it office odd behavior -- it's odd behavior. it's odd. i don't know what else to say. so i say to the speaker -- we have 15 people on our bill. i'll tell you who they are: casey, manchin, tester, nelson

of nebraska, bennet, warner, menendez, stabenow, merkley, rockefeller and you, mr. president. sherrod brown of ohio. we're willing to say if there is no budget deal, we shouldn't get paid. and i don't know whether the american people understand this, but if they did, you know, i think they would really be very upset because we have a special statute that protects our pay.o. to my north the people who work -- to my knowledge, the people who work here are not protected. members of congress and the president are protected in the case of a shutdown. there is a special statute. they get paid. and all we're saying is, that's wrong. if this government shuts down, that's wrong. or if we fail to raise the debt ceiling and we start not making our payments and defaulting and

america goes into a cycle that we've never seen before, we don't deserve a penney of pay. -- a penny of pay. and, bi by the way, our bill sa, no retroactivity either. the american people have a right to expect us to work. social security checks must continue to arrive. veterans must receive their benefits. passports have to be issued. superfund sites have to be cleaned. oil wells have to be inspected. export licenses have to be granted and our troops must be paid. and if we fail to keep the government open because of politics, because some group is rallying -- i don't care what end of the spectrum they're from -- if we cave to that kind of pressure, we don't deserve to be paid. simple as that. we should be treated like any other federal employee: no

better, no worse. now, i'll tell you, similar legislation -- this is so deja vu because in 1995 similar legislation passed the senate but, guess what? it never passed the house. now, here we have a member of congress complaining that he doesn't make enough money. let's talk about that everybody. in a video of tea party republicans -- let me take that back. in a video, tea party-described preen sean duffy of wisconsin said he couldn't pay his bills on his $174,000 salary. now listen, he has a lot of compassion for himself. but he doesn't seem to have that compassion for people who earn

$50,000 or $60,000 or $40,000 or $20,000. a lot less than he makes, but he says it's real tough to live on $174,000. i know he has a big family. god bless each and every one of them. but let us not be so selfish. if you have compassion for yourself, have it for your fellow human being. no budget, no pay, mr. duffy. i'm sorry. if our colleagues over there, who are very extreme -- and i know there was a big article that democrats are calling the budget proposals over there extreme; they are. if they're going to stand on that far right line and hurt the women of this country and hurt the families of this country and hurt the children of this country and hurt the seniors of this country, and they're not willing to meet us halfway when

they only control a third of the government and they don't agree, and this government shuts down, yes, mr. duffy, shoe not get your pay. we need to have the same pain inflicted on us as is inflicted on others. now, the speaker can say anything he wants, and eric cantor over there, they can say whatever they want. free speech, absolutely. but their actions speak louder than their words. when they say, oh, they don't think they should get paid but they fail to pass a free-standing bill like we did, they're not serious at all. they phut in a bill that's -- they put it in a bill that's ridiculous on its face. i've never heard of passing a bill that says another bill is deemed law. yeah, it's just -- it's hard for me to explain it it. i mean, anyone who studies how

the federal government works know, you pass these bills and then you send them to the president and then they are eight law -- and then they're the law. what he says is even though we already voted down h.r. 1, if we don't pass something else, h.r. 1 is deemed to have passed. and then it goes to the president. this makes no sense. itit's a new pay of passing bils that is made up by the republicans in the house. so it's interesting that the members whose paychecks the speaker is protecting are the same ones that are saying we should have a government shutdown. today we know the tea party is holding a rally demanding a government shutdown if h.r. 1, with all of its political vendettas against women and children and families, that in

fact there ought to be a shutdown if h.r. 1 doesn't pass, even though a leading republican economist, mark zandi, said it would cost us 700,000 jobs. the senate voted down h.r. 1. it only got 44 votes, folks. wake up and smell the roses. it's gone. h.r. 1 will never rear its head again. so if you are rallying for a bill that only got 44 votes that makes no sense. why not rally to call on us to come together, to meet in the middle, to compromise? that's what the american people want. do you think i want to meet the republicans in the middle and slash the type of programs that we had to slash? no. i'm very unhappy about it, but i'm willing to do it for the

good of the country. and then let the american people decide in the next election if these are the priorities that they share. h.r. 1 would kick hundreds of thousands of kids out of head start. it would stop tens of thousands from getting grants to go to college. how does that make us stronger? it doesn't. tom rooney -- representative tom rooney, republican from florida, said "i don't see had you we can avoid a shutdown." we will, i have news for him. we can. by working together. by crafting a budget where the numbers are right in the middle and then any of these political vendettas, they should come back in the form of other legislation. and congressman -- congresswoman

march that robie said yesterday, the tea party -- quote -- "would not settle for a split-the-baby strategy," which i guess meanses she's not for compromising. it's my way or the highway. now, i want to ask the american people rhetorically, is that fair? the people who run one of this third of the government want 100% of it their way. don't think so. don't think it would work that way in a family. that's not right. you control one-third of the government and you want 100% of what you want. it's not right. it's not right on its face. now 73% of the american people say a government shutdown would be a bad thing for our country. so when the tea party say, shut down the government, if we don't get 100% of what we want, they're out of touch.

we will do our part, and i'm glad that speaker boehner is back at the negotiating table. but i've got to say, we're not going to get anywhere if anybody says at that table, my way or the highway. that's over. this h.r. 1 is gone, and to -- because you pass a bill that says, if the senate doesn't act and pass it, it's deemed law, it sound like an april fool's joke. today is the 31st. maybe that's what it is, an april fool's joke. i -- again, i don't know how they came up with this. so where we are is very clear.

we're in a situation where we hope the government won't shut down but yet there are members in the house that are threatening a shutdown. we have a situation where 30 days ago we passed no budget, no pay for members of congress and the president, and they still haven't taken it up. and i -- and we sent a letter to speaker boehner. do we've copy that have? i'll put that in the record, if i might, mr. president. can i ask unanimous consent to put this letter to speaker boehner in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: thank you. so we call on him and we say, it's been 30 days, let's get our act together. we need to feel the pain ourselves. like all the others will feel the pain. and, mr. president, the reason that i'm staying close to the floor today, more than any other

reason, is the fact that for the first time in history congress is going to play scientist, congress t is going to play doctor, congress is going to decide what to do in terms of enforcing the clean air act. and this runs counter to the american people. leading public health groups are saying, please don't stop the e.p.a. from enforcing the clean air act. they are the american lung association -- i ask you, when you think of the american lung association, what do you think about? you think about doctors 0 who want to help patients, who don't want to see little boys like this -- little boys like this gasping for air, and it is our job to stand up for the health

of the people. you know, if -- if i ever had any other reason for being here -- and i've been here for a while, thanks to the good people of california -- it's to make sure that our people are protected to the best of our ability. we see -- we look at japan, at what is happening there, and we know how it felt when we had the b.p. oil spill and how we all did everything in our power to make things better. well, one way we have made things better, mr. president, over these years since the clean air act passed -- and i'll should i graph of los angeles. one way we have made things better for the people is the

clean air act. now, we all know we don't always do things perfectly around here. we're only human and we make mistakes. but i got to say, i wasn't here when the clean air act was signed. it was designesigned by richard. richard nixon set up the e.p.a. that was a republican effort. and now our republican friends are literally taking a dagger to the clean air act. the clean air act is supposed to be based on science, mr. president, not politics. if the scientists tell us and the health experts tell us that carbon pollution is a danger to our families and they pass an endangerment finding and the supreme court says, once an endanger piments finding is passed, you must act to klein the air -- to clean up the air, if that's what happens, congress should keep its nose out of it.

for two reasons: one, it will lead to little boys like that having to gasp for air, if we interfere with the clean air act. and, two, it works. the clean air act works. in this graph i will show that you in 1976 there were 166 days in los angeles, mr. president, where people were urged to stay indoors. there was a health advisory. whuk see the air -- when you can see the air, that's bad. and you could see the air on those days. that's what happened in the 1970's. and through the work. e.p.a. and local and state people who work with them, we find up with no health advisories in los angeles in 2010. what an unbelievable record. and now members of congress want

to mess with that. it's ridiculous. if it isn't broke, why are you fixing it? it works. they say they're doing it because of jobs. it's going to cost jobs. well, we know for a fact that that was the same thing that was said in the 1970's, and we have the greatest track record of job creation. if you took the job creation from the 1970's into 2010, if you looked at how many jobs there were created, it's huge. we have, of course, some of the greatest expansions in our history, notwithstanding the fact that we had a very fine clean air act in place. and guess what? when you clean up the air, you create jobs. you actually create jobs. there's no doubt about it. clean energy businesses are created. we became the world leader in many environmental technology

categories. and we are the world's largest producer and consumer of environmental technology goods and services. how proud are we of that. we should be proud of it. instead, we may be facing a series of votes today or monday -- i don't know exactly when -- that would, in fact, interfere with e.p.a.'s functioning. some of them are worse than others. the mcconnell amendment is the worst of the worst of the worst. guess what it does? it says forever more, the e.p.a. cannot ever enforce the clean air act as it pertains to carbon. so that is the worst of all. but all of them would stop the e.p.a. in its tracks right now from enforcing the law. so look at the environmental technology industry, mr. president. it's pretty impressive. we have 119 firms that generate

$300 billion in revenues, $43 billion in exports, $1.7 million jobs. we have smal small- and medium-d companies that make up 99% of these firms. and let me tell you, that's the issue. because we have small and medium-sized firms that want to see us keeping cleaning up the air versus the old energy, the big polluters, the huge polluters, the chemicals, the oil, the coal, et cetera. now, i want to work with all companies, small and large, because we are going to need a mix of energy sources, but, buts got to be cleaner. and that's what the e.p.a. has done over the years with its work. it's made sure that the industries get cleaner and cleaner. and every time they say don't do it, we'll lose business, we'll lose jobs, we'll go into recession, and the opposite has proven true. and in a letter dated march 2,

numerous clean energy and conservation organizations said -- quote -- "stepping the e.p.a. for doing its job now means more americans will suffer ill health." and more clean energy jobs will be outsourced overseas and fewer american jobs will be created at home. now, health experts oppose amendments that weaken the clean air act. they're against all of these amendments. they say these amendments would interfere with e.p.a.'s ability to implement the clean air act, a law that protects public health and reduces health care costs for all. it's just an obvious point, mr. president. if you never get asthma, your health is better, costs are lower simple as that. so everyone's who's a leader on health care ought to understand. when people get sick because you vote to weaken e.p.a.'s

enforcement of the clean air act, that has a cost. it has a cost to these kids. i'll show you another picture of a little girl, beautiful little girl, suffering and struggling and gasping for air. that's to me the picture of what this debate is all about. whose side are you on? her side or the biggest, most powerful polluting industries in the country. it's a choice we have to make. and the republicans in the house have taint worst of these environmental bills and they've put them on h.r. 1 and they want h.r. 1, h.r. 1, h.r. 1. pay back all the big polluters in the country who supported them. now, it doesn't make sense on any level, mr. president. doesn't make sense in jobs, doesn't make sense in terms of the health of our people and it's politically unpopular. let's take a look at a recent poll that was done all across

the country by a republican polling firm and a democratic polling firm, and i'm going to show you what it came out with. 69% say the e.p.a. clean air act standards should be updated with stricter air pollution limits. people want cleaner air. they see their kids gasping. i said the other day, if you, mr. president, go into any school in your state and asked the children, how many of you have asthma? probably about a quarter of them will raise their hands. and if you say, how many of you know a child with asthma? it's about 50% of the crowd. and asthma's a very difficult condition. i listened -- listen to senator lautenberg all the time talk about how it is with his -- he has a grandson with bad asthma. and the mother, every time she takes him to play a baseball game or she's away from home, she has to make a run to, where

is the nearest emergency room? this -- this isn't a benign situation. it's a serious situation for children. and adults. so that's why the american people are smart. they're saying, well, wait a minute, we want the e.p.a. to clean up the air and we don't want congress involved. look what they say. 68%. now, mind you, this was taken february 14, february 16. this is the height of the politics in our country, fighting this side, that side. 68% believe congress should not stop e.p.a. from enforcing clean air act standards. and 69% believe e.p.a. scientists, not congress, should set pollution standards. people are smart. if you're -- if you've got a problem with a tooth, you go to a dentist, you don't go to a member of congress unless

they're a dentist. people know scientists, doctors, they're the ones who should guide us on the clean air act, not poll litionz. look, i'm -- not politicians. look, i'm proud of my work. i love what i do. and i think i know -- i've learned quite a bit about a lot of things. but i don't decide what level of ozone is healthy, you know, what level of small particulate matter in the area is healthy, what amount of radiation in the milk is okay. it's ridiculous. the experts have to determine it. but this senate is about to vote on a series of amendments which will stop that in its tracks and say, we members of congress know better. now, e.p.a. administrators under nixon, reagan and george bush opposed attempts to weaken the

e.p.a. listen to this. this is signed by william ruckelshaus and christine todd whitman. this is a quote from their op-ed piece, two republicans. so i say to my republican friends here, listen to the people who you respected when they were head of the e.p.a. what do they say? "it's easy to fr get ho forget r we've come in the past 40 years. we should take heart from all this progress and not, as some in congress have sudden, seek to tear down the very agency that the president and congress created to protect america's health and environment." that is powerful. they went on to say, "today the agency president richard nixon created in response to the public outcry over visible air pollution and flammable rivers is under siege." they're right. these two republican former administrators of the e.p.a. are right. e.p.a. is under siege. not because it hasn't done its

job. it has done its job magnificently. i've shown you -- i'm going to show you the stats on how many premature deaths, mr. president, were averted as a result of the e.p.a.'s action. i think it would stun you. the clean air act in 2010 alone, mr. president, prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. now, by 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000. so i say to my colleagues on all sides of the aisle here, if you saw a child, maybe your child, maybe your grandchild, about to be run down by a -- by a car, and you knew you could save th them, you would do it. you would save them.

i'm telling you, my colleagues, we can save 230,000 people from facing premature death. that's a fact. that's what the sign shows. and -- that's what the science shows. and yet we're going to de -- we're going to weaken, weaken the very agency that can do this. 1.7 million fewer asthma attacks in 2010 because of the clean air act. and if we keep going and we don't interfere with the e.p.a., by 2020, there will be 2.4 million fewer asthma attacks. so let's take a look at that child again. just either one of those babies. here. so i'm telling you, mr. president, and i'm saying to america and i'm saying to my colleagues, this is a baby who's struggling for breath.

if you knew you could save him, if you knew you could save another child from this, you would do it. and by leaving the clean air act alone, by letting the e.p.a. do its work, it's a fact -- it's not fiction, it's a fact that more than a million kids won't have to do this. i don't know any colleague, i don't know one, who doesn't love children, love their own, love everybody's, love their constituents' kids, love their grandkids. i don't -- i hardly know anyone who doesn't talk about our kids, whether it's in the context of their debt or it's in the context of their health or it's in any context. i am telling you right here and now, if you love our kids, don't support weakening the e.p.a. because our kids are the most vulnerable to dirty air.

why? because they're little, because the breath that they make takes up so much of their body. what they breathe in is more potent because they are so little. and they're developing. so, you know, again, whether it's business groups, whether it's former e.p.a. administrators, whether it's these incredible groups that have come together with nothing on their agenda except the health of the people, groups like the american lung association, groups like the physicians for social responsibility. this is a very -- i've given you a lot of facts to back up what i've said, and, believe me,

they're irrefutable facts. they are facts. the reason given for stopping the e.p.a. from enforcing the law is, oh, it hurts the economy. i've shown you that that's the argument that's been made by big business forever and it never was accurate. i guess they've stopped now saying that the e.p.a. doesn't really have any success track because i've shown you specifically how many early deaths were averted, how many asthma attacks were averted. i've shown you how many. let's go back to that again. how many missed days of work were averted. we have the facts, so they can't argue that. so what do they argue -- "oh, it's a recession." well, let me tell you something, if you want people to work, i've got news for you.

if they can't breathe, they can't work. that's a fact. that's irrefutable. the clean air act in 2010 alone, mr. president, prevented 130,000 heart attacks, acute heart attacks. by 2020, it will avert 200,000 acute heart attacks. so again, i'm just saying, if you -- if you put yourself in the position of somebody who sees somebody being -- almost being hurt and you could pull that person back from the cliff, you could pull that person back and say, you're safe. don't vote for these amendments because we know it's our constituents that will suffer. in 2010, the clean air act prevented 3.2 million lost days at school. why is it? because when a kid is gasping for air, they're not going to go tooo